You see, sister, I've got better things to do with my time than to blame religion for the world;'s problems and my own problems as well.

I have a life, and will not always be here to answer promptly to a valid point in the midst of invalid ones.

I've been teaching myself Linux, which requires reading and learning. Try it some time. Get a life.Stop crying like babies and step out into the universe.

... oh good gravy.

Euroclydon, I'm a certified Linux admin and an IT professional managing several thousand users across three states and twelve facilities, most with mission-critical systems. I read two to three novel-length books a week, and blahblahblah...

If you think that makes me somehow qualified for awesomeness... it doesn't. Not in the slightest. It doesn't mean anything except that I'm competent at my job.

And if you think a screenshot of Firefox, your process tree, a filesystem manager, and your MP3 player on transparent terminal panels under Linux mint is /impressive/, somehow, you are in for a world of shock when you actually get done with that learnin' there, son.

You want to impress people with your knowledge? Posting desktop screenies that include a couple of pachinko machines and some simple scripting hacks ain't exactly doing it.

also........ I'd like to know the reason behind your little Linux outburst. Several of us here use Linux, myself included. Some of us here (from what I've read) are network admins (myself included). So your Linux comment is pretty out of place. Perhaps I'm taking it a bit too personal.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 10:40:10 PM by Emily »

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

You see, sister, I've got better things to do with my time than to blame religion for the world;'s problems and my own problems as well.

I have a life, and will not always be here to answer promptly to a valid point in the midst of invalid ones.

I've been teaching myself Linux, which requires reading and learning. Try it some time. Get a life.

Ahm.... didn't you say that you are learning Ubuntu or some variation of it?

(Edit: His screenshot shows) Mint. It is, indeed, a Debian-based distro; it's an Ubuntu fork that comes with most hardware support out-of-the-box. It's not bad - I like its esthetic better than Ubuntu, mostly (really, I know, it's shallow) because I prefer green to brown.

And I like its fonts. Yay pretty fonts!

Quote

I hate to burst your bubble but there really ins't much of a learning curve needed in any Ubuntu/Debian based distros.

Do you want a challenge: Try Slackware or Solaris (Unix) Gentoo is a bitch too.

You ain't kiddin', sister. Slackware, after all these years, still makes me bitch and moan. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I still prefer the FreeBSD or Debian stacks - I get tired of futzing with drivers.

Good learning experience, though.

Then again, I still remember the days when the Linux community was all, "Xwindows is crap! The command line is all anyone ever needs!" Funny how /that/ didn't stick.

also........ I'd like to know the reason behind your little Linux outburst. Several of us here use Linux, myself included. Some of us here (from what I've read) are network admins (myself included). So your Linux comment is pretty out of place. Perhaps I'm taking it a bit too personal.

I didn't know! You're going to have to eventually spill what systems you're working with, you know, that we may take over a corner of the WWGHA forum and geek at each other.

Maybe we need a "holycrap, this ticket I got today" topic. If it's any consolation, though, I took that very personally as well. Knowing computers doesn't make you somehow brilliant or superior - and I had that impression from his post, y'know?

Logged

"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one." - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

I always find it amusing when those that preach about religion can't ever follow their own teachings...

But then they hold you to it when they do it. The reality is, we would have to forgive this Jesus a hell of a lot, even though he was tortured to death, since all of this Christian history is written in insanity and blood, and the promise of eternal torture - even for small shit.

My take is this - why, after reading the bible, do we still ignore the facts and continue with the belief? I would say it's because we wish some parts were true, and are saying shit - if this is true then I had better believe in it...

These are barriers to rational thought - strong emotion...

Logged

"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger.""If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me. Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Premise #1: Arguing on this forum means that one has no life.Premise #2: Euroclydon argues on this forum.Conclusion from #1 and #2: Euroclydon has no life.

The conclusion is false. Premise #2 is accurate. Therefore, premise #1 must be false. Agreed?

You forgot premise #0 , suggested by the other poster:

Premise #0 Arguing on this forum means responding within a certain time frame and to individual satisfactions.Premise #1: Arguing on this forum means that one has no life.Premise #2: Euroclydon argues on this forum.Conclusion from #1 and #2: Euroclydon has no life.

In response to the OP... Without proving the existence of jesus in the first place any argument about what he may have said or not said, and whether or not he contradicted himself is moot. It's not that much different than trying to argue over who would win in a fight between darth vader and an intellectually honest theist.

You see... I am glad I was busy earlier this year and didn't bother taking the time to read this thread. Euroclydon is rude and his arguments nonsensical--what an amusing caricature of a logical debater.

In response to the OP... Without proving the existence of jesus in the first place any argument about what he may have said or not said, and whether or not he contradicted himself is moot. It's not that much different than trying to argue over who would win in a fight between darth vader and an intellectually honest theist.

Yes, but the difference is that most people agree that Darth Vader is a fictional character; whereas, most people believe Jesus is a real person, at least based upon the sheer number of reported Christians on earth.

Jesus is an interesting character in an interesting story, but I think Zeus, Persephone, and Medusa are on the same level as Jesus (i.e. just as fictional), and much more interesting. But the Jesus dude seems like a nice enough fictional guy who had some decent teachings.

As you quoted (my emphasis added) "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.". He nowhere says calling someone a fool will send you to the fires of hell, just that it puts you "in danger" of the fire of hell.

I think a similar comparison can be drawn:I say that "playing with fire could get you burnt", and I precede to play with fire. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm basically ignoring my own advise, and could well get myself burnt in the process.That as opposed to if I'd said:"Playing with fire makes you a fool, and I am no fool", but I then play with fire. I am contradicting myself in this instance.

Why not practice what he preaches? He's telling people that it's dangerous to do one thing, then he does it. That'd be like me telling my children not to touch the stove when it's on because it's hot, and then going and touching it in front of them when it's on in front of them. Or... like, it's foolish to not wear you seat belt in the car, and then go ahead and not wear it in front of them. Why?

I've been teaching myself Linux, which requires reading and learning. Try it some time. Get a life.

How did I manage to miss this gem of a theist? This level of arrogance might have been fun to play with. This guy hasn't got the time to bother with us because he's learning Linux. How much of his time is it taking him to learn it? Most of us here manage to find time to argue, do our research, read up on science, religion and philosophy AND learn new hobbies, continue old ones, go to work, feed ourselves, study (for any students) and have a social life. My God, I feel so stupid for being a WWGHA member, well, excuse me ladies and gents, what am I doing logged into Windows 8 and posting this message!? Hot damn, Windows 8 is for morons! I best boot up on my Ubuntu partition and writing this message in C++ code using Codeblocks! Or I would, but it'd mean I have to boot up my other laptop, because it's the one with the partition and I cannae be arsed grabbing it.

As you quoted (my emphasis added) "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.". He nowhere says calling someone a fool will send you to the fires of hell, just that it puts you "in danger" of the fire of hell.

I think a similar comparison can be drawn:I say that "playing with fire could get you burnt", and I precede to play with fire. I'm not contradicting myself, I'm basically ignoring my own advise, and could well get myself burnt in the process.That as opposed to if I'd said:"Playing with fire makes you a fool, and I am no fool", but I then play with fire. I am contradicting myself in this instance.

Drink driving is a dangerous affair. Would somebody who says, "if you drink and drive, you'd be putting yourself and others in danger" by a hypocrite if they then went out on a binge and sat behind the wheel...even if he manages to get off okay without running down a few school children. If it was your driving instructor, I am sure he'd lose his job.

I mean, if we were to take the argument that this isn't a contradiction, then arguably no sin can really be bad so long as you're willing to suffer the consequences. But isn't hell for sinners? Jesus warns of a great number of things that would send one to hell and so does the old testament - God is very keen on being wrathful to those who do things he doesn't like. Any action where you'd put yourself at risk of being sent to hell is clearly a wrong doing in the eyes of the Lord, unless of course he's doing it for kicks. Whilst my opinion of bible-God isn't very high, because I think there are many horrific traits I don't think he's getting off on people suffering for the sake of people suffering. I get that he's vengeful and very egotistical in the bible, but the bible doesn't suggest to me that he derives pleasure from it. So I doubt he's added the risk for kicks.

So, God's only son, who is but a man, would happily sin whilst teaching men not to sin. But it's not really a case of not following his own advice (generally, people who don't follow their own advice are hypocrites, I don't always follow mine and when I don't, that makes ME a hypocrite), because it is God, his father (or for those who believe in the holy trinity, himself) made these rules he was sent to bring. There's nothing to say Jesus, who is considered a man in the bible, is exempt from these rules, as already suggested.

And the bible does state that Jesus has not come to change the law, but to enforce it, yet at times he's seemingly above the law.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

I think Jesus is alluding to the point that if you have this attitude it maybe reflecting other areas of your life that would be sending you to hell, such as unforgiveness. Also, he's statement and yours are different to an extent. He is talking about someone's attitude toward someone else. You are talking about a physical action, which if you lost control, would directly affect others. Calling someone a fool isn't going to injure them (except maybe emotionally), loosing control and crashing into someone else is going to directly affect their life.

Interesting logic, but I think there is an issue with it. "no sin can really be bad so long as you're willing to suffer the consequences", the bible outlines the consequences of sin, which is without forgiveness, being sent to hell. Also, Jesus never said calling someone a fool was a sin. As I said, he simply outlined that if you have that attitude, chances are, you will do other things that will send you to hell.You say that "Jesus warns of a great number of things that would send one to hell and so does the old testament", but he never said calling someone a full would send you to hell, like I outlined above.What "horrific traits" are you talking about exactly? I think you may have the wrong impression (at least, that is my impression)

Where did Jesus explicitly commit a sin? I mean, Pilot confessed that he found no law that Jesus broke, so I'm curious where you feel he fell down. Again, Jesus was saying that calling someone a fool could indicate a deeper problem, and that he wasn't a hypocrite. Even assuming that he is, can you show where hypocrisy is listed as a sin?

"And the bible does state that Jesus has not come to change the law, but to enforce it, yet at times he's seemingly above the law." Care to share the verses where you believe this is the case?

Seppuku, it's not technically a contradiction, because "in danger of" is wishy-washy language. How high do the odds of something have to be to qualify as "danger of" that thing? One could say that to fly in an airplane is to be in danger of dying in a crash. By any intuitive standard, that risk is not a danger. But it's more than zero.

A danger of X happening is not falsified by an observation of X not happening.

That was my inner-theist talking. I do not believe in separate truths or realities. I especially do not believe in the idea of respecting all beliefs. That would be idiotic. Only some beliefs are respectable.

I'm confused screwtape. Are you saying that any proofs/arguments that demonstrate what Jesus said isn't a contradiction will always be dismissed by yourself? Or are you just being difficult to Mooby I ask, as I'm working out of you want an answer, or an argument.

No, it was your inner caricature of a theist talking. It's about as accurate as a theist pretending to be a nihilistic amoral god-hater and claiming it's their inner atheist talking.

Mooby, you should know that there are tons and tons and tons of xians who come in here and say the exact things I said, verbatim. That might not be you (I never said or implied it was) or all xians, but they definitely and unquestionably exist in large numbers.

I'm confused screwtape. Are you saying that any proofs/arguments that demonstrate what Jesus said isn't a contradiction will always be dismissed by yourself? Or are you just being difficult to Mooby I ask, as I'm working out of you want an answer, or an argument.

I'm teasing the Moobster.

I want a correct understanding of reality, and that includes religion. I would not want to reject xianity based on a misunderstanding. Fortunately, there are plenty of solid, valid reasons to reject xianity, even if Mooby is right about the few to which he objected.